DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the optical signal acquisition duration” (lines 6-7) appears that it should be “the preset optical signal acquisition duration.”
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the optical signal type” (line 3) appears that it should be “the human body optical signal type.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition module,” in claim 7, which corresponds to “software,” “hardware,” “a chip,” or “program codes” (see para [0124] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a first data acquisition module,” in claim 7, which corresponds to “software,” “hardware,” “a chip,” or “program codes” (see para [0124] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a second data acquisition module,” in claim 7, which corresponds to “software,” “hardware,” “a chip,” or “program codes” (see para [0124] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a first feature data processing module,” in claim 7, which corresponds to “software,” “hardware,” “a chip,” or “program codes” (see para [0124] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a second feature data processing module,” in claim 7, which corresponds to “software,” “hardware,” “a chip,” or “program codes” (see para [0124] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); “a feature data fusion module,” in claim 7, which corresponds to “software,” “hardware,” “a chip,” or “program codes” (see para [0124] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed); and “a blood glucose prediction module,” in claim 7, which corresponds to “software,” “hardware,” “a chip,” or “program codes” (see para [0124] of Applicant’s specification as originally filed).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 1, the claim term “the optical signal acquisition duration” (liens 6-7) is ambiguous. Claim 1 previously recites “a preset optical signal acquisition duration” and it is unclear whether this is the duration being referred to or whether a new duration is being introduced. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 2, the claim term the optical signal type” (line 3) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites “a human body optical signal type” and it is unclear whether this is the optical signal type being referred to or whether a new optical signal type is being introduced. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 6, the claim term “the individual hidden-layer input nodes” (lines 7-8) lacks antecedent basis. The claim is examined as this being a newly introduced claim term.
For claim 6, the claim language “then input to the corresponding input nodes to generate corresponding input node data” is ambiguous. Input what? The claim is examined as meaning inputting the individual feature data of the first feature vector.
For claim 7, the claim term “a calibrated blood glucose value” (line 6) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already recites “a calibrated blood glucose value.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same value is being referred to or whether these are different values. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “a first calibrated blood glucose data” (lines 6-7) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already recites “a first calibrated blood glucose data.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same data is being referred to or whether these are different data. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “a preset optical signal acquisition duration” (lines 8-9) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already recites “a preset optical signal acquisition duration.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same duration is being referred to or whether these are different durations. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “a human optical signal type” (line 9) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already recites “a human optical signal type.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same type is being referred to or whether these are different types. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “three human body optical signals bands” (line 9) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already recites “three human body optical signals bands.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the same bands are being referred to or whether these are different bands. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “human body optical signals” (line 10) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “corresponding first, second, and third optical signals” (lines 10-11) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “the optical signal acquisition duration” (line 11) is ambiguous. Claim 7 previously recites “preset optical signal acquisition duration” and it is unclear whether this is the duration being referred to or whether a new duration is being introduced. The claim is examined under the former interpretation.
For claim 7, the claim term “environmental optical signals” (line 12) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “a fourth optical signal” (line 12) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “human body contact heat signals” (line 14) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “a first metabolic heat signal” (lines 14-15) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “radiation heat signals” (line 15) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “a proximal end of a human body” (lines 15-16) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “a second metabolic heat signal” (line 16) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “temperature change information from the proximal end of the human body” (line 17) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “a third metabolic heat signal” (lines 17-18) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “humidity change information from the proximal end of the human body” (line 18-19) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “a fourth metabolic heat signals” (line 19) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “calibration output information” (line 20) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “a proximal-end radiation sensor” (line 20) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “a fifth metabolic heat signal” (line 21) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “temperature change information from a distal end of the human body” (line 22) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “a sixth metabolic heat signal” (lines 22-23) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “humidity change information from the distal end of the human body” (lines 23-24) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “a seventh metabolic heat signal” (line 24) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “human body optical signal features” (lines 25-26) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “corresponding first, second, and third optical feature data groups” (line 26-27) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “environmental optical signal features” (lines 27-28) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “corresponding fourth optical feature data” (lines 28-29) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “metabolic heat features” (lines 30-31) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “corresponding first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh metabolic heat feature data” (lines 32-33) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “feature fusion” (line 34) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “a first feature vector” (line 35) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “a floating blood glucose prediction model” (lines 36-37) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “floating blood glucose values” (line 37) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “first floating blood glucose data” (lines 37-38) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “first predicted blood glucose data” (line 38) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
For claim 7, the claim term “a sum of the first calibrated blood glucose data and the first floating blood glucose data” (lines 38-39) is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, already this term. Therefore, it is unclear whether these should be the same or different elements in the claim.
Dependent claim(s) 2-9 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Claim [insert number of first independent claim here] is a claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter and therefore meets one of the categorical limitations of 35 U.S.C. 101. However, claim 1 meets the first prong of the step 2A analysis because it is directed to a/an abstract idea, as evidenced by the claim language of “acquiring a calibrated blood glucose value to generate first calibrated blood glucose data,” “according to a preset optical signal acquisition duration, a human body optical signal type and three human body optical signal bands, continuously acquiring human body optical signals to generate corresponding first, second, and third optical signals, and according to the optical signal acquisition duration, continuously acquiring environmental optical signals to generate a fourth optical signal,” “according to a preset metabolic heat signal acquisition duration, continuously acquiring human body contact heat signals to generate a first metabolic heat signal, continuously acquiring radiation heat signals from a proximal end of a human body to generate a second metabolic heat signal, continuously acquiring temperature change information from the proximal end of the human body to form a third metabolic heat signal, continuously acquiring humidity change information from the proximal end of the human body to form a fourth metabolic heat signal, continuously acquiring calibration output information from a proximal-end radiation sensor used to acquire the radiation heat signals to form a fifth metabolic heat signal, continuously acquiring temperature change information from a distal end of the human body to form a sixth metabolic heat signal, and continuously acquiring humidity change information from the distal end of the human body to form a seventh metabolic heat signal,” “extracting and normalizing human body optical signal features of the first, second, and third optical signals to generate corresponding first, second, and third optical feature data groups,” “extracting and normalizing environmental optical signal features of the fourth optical signal to generate corresponding fourth optical feature data,” “extracting and normalizing metabolic heat features of the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh metabolic heat signals to generate corresponding first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh metabolic heat feature data,” “performing feature fusion on all obtained feature data to generate a first feature vector,” and “based on a floating blood glucose prediction model, predicting floating blood glucose values for the first feature vector to generate first floating blood glucose data; and generating first predicted blood glucose data according to a sum of the first calibrated blood glucose data and the first floating blood glucose data.” This claim language, under the broadest, reasonable interpretation, encompasses subject matter that may be performed by a human using mental steps or with pen and paper that can involve basic critical thinking, which are types of activities that have been found by the courts to represents abstract ideas (i.e., the mental comparison in Ambry Genetics, or the diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and thinking about the results in Grams). The claim language also meets prong 2 of the step 2A analysis because the above-recited claim language does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That is, there appears to be no tangible improvement in a technology, effect of a particular treatment or prophylaxis, a particular machine or manufacture that is integrated, or transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing as a result of this claimed subject matter. As a result, step 2A is satisfied and the second step, step 2B, must be considered.
With regard to the second step, the claim does not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more. There are no additional elements and thus the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements do not have any function that is not already supplied by each element individually. That is, the whole is not greater than the sum of its parts.
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claim(s) 2-9 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 by merely reciting additional abstract ideas and/or further limitations on abstract ideas already recited. Thus, claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
CN 1022936548 to Tang et al. (hereinafter “Tang”) discloses a blood glucose prediction method based on optical signal features and metabolic heat features (Abstract), comprising the steps of: acquiring human body optical signals to generate corresponding first, second, and third optical signals (via 13 and 14) (Fig. 1) (para [0022]), acquiring radiation heat signals from a proximal end of a human body to generate a second metabolic heat signal (via 6) (Fig. 2), acquiring temperature change information from the proximal end of the human body to form a third metabolic heat signal (via 7) (Fig. 1), acquiring humidity change information from the proximal end of the human body to form a fourth metabolic heat signal (via 10) (Fig. 1) (also see D1- or D--2), acquiring temperature change information from a distal end of the human body to form a sixth metabolic heat signal (via 8) (Fig. 1), and acquiring humidity change information from the distal end of the human body to form a seventh metabolic heat signal (via 10) (Fig. 1) (also see the other of D1- or D--2); performing feature fusion on all obtained feature data to generate a first feature vector (para [0024]); and
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0256114 to Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen”) discloses a blood glucose prediction method based on optical signal features and metabolic heat features (Abstract), comprising the steps of: acquiring a calibrated blood glucose value to generate first calibrated blood glucose data (para [0012] and [0047]).
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0323437 to Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) discloses extracting and normalizing human body optical signal features to generate corresponding optical feature data (para [0044]).
However, the prior art of record does not disclose and would not have rendered obvious the ordered combination of elements recited in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights